NationStates Jolt Archive

... then why?

I'm getting pretty sick of so much of the opposition to ESCR, and what really bothers me about it is that what people find "immoral" about it just varies so much that it's almost hard to tell just what's mainstream. So I ask, why are you against public funding for using embryonic stem cell research for medical purposes?

If you're against it because you don't think the government should use tax dollars for things the people would disagree with, I find that arbitrary. You'd have to be defending their reasons for disagreeing with it to be using that reason, because there's other things some people disagree with that get public funding. For example, some people disagree with public health care, but it's not like they can pay less in taxes. And really, since ESCR is for medical purposes, it should be part of the public health care funding. UNLESS there is some other reason on which the tax reason is building (and as such, if you're against ESCR entirely on the basis of believing that the governmental use of tax dollars is what's "immoral" about it) then it'd be inconsistent of you not to be against public health care. So the tax reason doesn't work, unless its use is in building on another reason.

But the other reasons are even worse. Yes, embryonic stem cell research destroys 3-day-old human embryos to get the cells, but why should insentient embryos without a consciousness to lose by being destroyed be protected at the expense of sentient human beings with a consciousness? Some say that "life" begins at conception so these embryos should be protected even if they aren't sentient. In that case, in order for your position to be consistent, you'd have to consider the use of the morning-after pill murder and have it punished accordingly for your position to be even close to consistent. But what about "life" are you referring to, the fact that it has metabolic processes, etc. simply fitting the biological classification of life (this argument is from a comment to a Youtube video about ESCR, which to be fair might not represent the mainstream opposition to ESCR) and having human bio-material making it human life? If you are supposed to use definitions from sub-branches of science to make an ethical point, what about work? In physics, work is the product of an unbalanced force and the resulting motion. So, everything that applies force that results in motion counts as work according to that definition. Should everything that applies force resulting in motion be therefore have a paid wage? Of course not, because there are different meanings to the term "work"; the same applies, there are different meanings to the term "life"; someone's life could also mean the sum of someone's experiences, in which case this doesn't apply to embryos that don't have a consciousness.

And what about the claim that embryonic stem cell research won't work? Some say that adult stem cell research has provided cures while embryonic stem cell research hasn't, but adult stem cell research has had DECADES longer to make the discoveries it has; embryonic stem cell research is relatively new. Now I'm certainly not saying we should be any less supportive of adult stem cell research than now, absolutely we should help whatever medical science we can. But to say you don't support embryonic stem cell research because it hasn't given cures is getting it backwards at best; if people being against ESCR believe that will affect ESCR, then by their own reasoning they're part of why it hasn't found cures, and if they believe it won't affect ESCR, why would they bother to oppose it? And that's not the only thing they have backwards; embryonic stem cell research actually has MORE potential for cures than adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized cells, so they can form different types of cells, giving us more potential to understand development than adult stem cells. Some say there is a method that allows adult stem cells to function like embryonic stem cells, but from what I've heard this method isn't really effective. Opposing embryonic stem cell research for the "lack of cures" reason now would be like saying, "well this car that started out from the same place before we did got to the same destination before we did, so let's stop this car because if they got there before us, this car isn't going to get us there"; ok, granted, maybe that's an exaggeration, but the argument I'm comparing it to just seems to be used so much. But really, the thing is, if the people opposed to it actually oppose it on ethical grounds, of COURSE they're going to want to use whatever arguments they can to convince people against it, even arguments not from ethicality. We've seen this with PETA and their claiming that milk causes zits, etc... and we see this now with opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

I keep hearing about church opposition to such and such research, scientists trying to design this alternative to the embryos, etc... but why should scientists have to bend to the will of the churches anyway? The religious choke chain is being pulled on medical research, and many people, including myself (I have type 1 diabetes) are being victimized in the process. We've seen some embryonic stem cell research advocates like Michael J. Fox, for example, trying to be gentle with opponents, and he got met with completely false accusations of partisanship, faking, and half-truth. Being nice is clearly not working. It's time we fight back. So here I go:

If you're against embryonic stem cell research, then I'd like to see you get type 1 diabetes.

I am against experimentation upon animals, or even insects. I am also a vegetarian. These embryos have about that much consciousness.

They're here. They are against it because they believe an embryo is a life.


I disagree and think theyre foolish. But they are entitled to that opinion.

I don't think you'll find any genuine anti-stem cellers here on NSG. I could be wrong...

They disagree because they don't know the first thing about medical science, and have no understanding whatsoever of the problematic.

I am against experimentation upon animals, or even insects. I am also a vegetarian. These embryos have about that much consciousness.
Ironically, I actually favour medical research on animals anyway, but that's another topic for antoher day...

I don't think it's conclusive that embryos suffer pain, or indeed have an advanced conciousness.
There is no pain if there is no nervous system. It's that simple.

These embryos have about that much consciousness.
But the important point, from a vegetarian/nonspeciesist point of view, is whether or not the embryos suffer or not.

I don't think it's conclusive that embryos suffer pain, or indeed have an advanced conciousness.

Doesn't something have to have a pulse to be alive? How is a cluster of cells... A FROZEN cluster of cells alive? It boggles the mind because more developed humans have been inadvertently ejected into toilets than these so-called 'potential human beings'.

*sigh*

But the important point, from a vegetarian/nonspeciesist point of view, is whether or not the embryos suffer or not.

I don't think it's conclusive that embryos suffer pain, or indeed have an advanced conciousness.



It definitally does not feel pain. It not only is not self aware, it also does not have a nervous system.

Here's an aspect of the stem cell issue that pisses me off, presented in step-by-step format.

1. Pro-life folks are into saving the embryos from the evils of research, and they feel that way based on their Biblical respect for all life as a gift of God. I think that's just fine. Everyone needs to believe something, and on the whole, Christianity averages positive. It’s judgmental in practice, but largely positive.

2. When someone dies young in a tragedy of some sort, pro-lifers tend to console themselves with the salve of God's Will: God being the nominal author of the person's untimely demise. God’s Will is inviolable and infallible. Subverting God's Will is, in fact, one of the more strident arguments against gay marriage and all kinds of things to which pro-lifers are morally opposed.

3. However, and conveniently, God's Will pretty much stops at death when it comes to ameliorating the sting of sorrowful events. If a pro-life couple is infertile or "barren" as the Bible words it, that too is God's Will. Or is it? Science, which seems to suffer at the hands of populist Christians more often than it profits, developed a way for pro-lifers and others to subvert God's Will by producing viable offspring using genetic ingredients from those couples previously determined to be sterile. How is this any different from any morally objectionable action deemed sinful because it opposes God's Will?

3a. To be fair, some folks DO take God's Will as law and go through life heirless (or, saints be praised, adopt). Some folks even allow their children to go without scientific meddling of any kind (vaccinations or other medical treatment) and instead pray for their healing and wellness. Don’t get me wrong, I'm all for prayer. After all, thoughts held in mind produce after their kind, and the healing potential of the human mind has been amply demonstrated, or at least correlated. It doesn't take much, however, for me to imagine God trying to poke through the Veil long enough to urge those faithful medical Luddites to get their kid to a hospital.

4. So the barren pro-life couple goes to a fertility clinic and the scientific and technical jiggery-pokery is done and lo and behold, it's a miracle -- the pro-lifers are with child. In fact, quite commonly, according to statistics, they’re with brood.

4a. Many times – 50% of the time in one study at Bryn Mawr University – fertility treatments lead to multiple births. These people then not only oppose God's Will, but burden themselves and their family and their friends and community with quintuplets. Miracle? Not so much. And get this – businesses, chambers of commerce and even colleges try to make hay of the publicity surrounding the sudden family-of-seven by offering them FREE STUFF. Diaper services, scholarships for when they go to college, all kinds of generous donations. And that's fine. But ask many of these people to donate to someone who's destitute with ONE child (and perhaps add the sad coincidence that the parent and/or child has a dark skin tone), and you'll get the bootstrap lecture. To sum up: choose to defy God and pump out five units? Free stuff. Defy God with one baby out of wedlock (or in wedlock and poor…perhaps the result of abstinence-only sex-ed? That’s another rant…) and get a clucking lecture on responsibility and "choices". Apparently the choice to adopt instead of superovulate is not one that’s covered in that lecture series.

4b. I don't know the exact number, and it's likely different for every woman, but fertilized eggs pass through the uterus without attaching and get flushed out all the time! Pro-lifers, to use their logic, effectively label any sexually active woman who conceives, but for one reason or another doesn't implant, a murderer...or even a serial killer. Well, she's sexually active without being married (an assumption that makes pro-lifers feel nice and righteous, despite the fact that it can happen to infertile pro-life couples, too...only five implanted, remember, out of how many created and sent in), so she gets what she deserves. See how inaccurate unenlightened righteousness can be?

4c. Then there are the zygotes that didn't get implanted and didn't get flushed out during the pro-lifers' fertility procedure. What of them? Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life have their hands full with five newborns. But then, they wouldn't want to see some other family raising what they believe are their unicellular sons and/or daughters...goodness, what to do?

5. Aunt Martha has Parkinson's Disease (or a spinal cord injury or name your potentially-helped-by-stem-cells condition). This too is seen as God's Will and Auntie has been very strong, brave and even spry during her fight. What President Bush has effectively done with his virgin veto is say this: Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life may use the benefit of science to reverse God's Will and spill a few zygotes in the process. Aunt Martha, despite only needing those zygotes that were headed for disposal anyway via medical waste bin or freezer burn, will not be allowed that same privilege.

6. I'm completely supportive and even appreciative of the Christian lifestyle (that word, lifestyle, always sounds bad when applied to homosexuals, but slap it on one of the "good" religions, and my, such a rehabilitation). I am glad that folks have a way to make themselves feel good and get through life with a feeling of security. Sometimes I even envy them.

7. My support comes crashing to the ground faster than Courtney Love at an open bar when that lifestyle threatens to become law, especially in the area of consensual acts, moral ambiguity, and when there's room for disagreement. When your morality becomes law, that means I must do what you think is right, no matter what I think. Well, I love Aunt Martha, and I think she deserves any possible help medical science can give. And given that you feel the same way about not adopting -- being fanatical about seeing your own genes expressed and furthering your bloodline, regardless of how independent blood is from how you raise a child -- I don’t see where you have a leg to stand on with regard to stem cell research.

Sorry for the length, but that's been in my head for a while. Thank you for your attention.

There is no pain if there is no nervous system. It's that simple.

Which is not (as I have experience) the core issue. You're suggesting that if there was a guaranteed pain-free way to kill someone that it should be elementary to conclude that all humans should be ok with mass execution (so long as you use this pain-free method).

I don't support stem-cell research for the same reasons I dont' support abortion and more. I'm not a fan of pre-birth genetic engineering, nor do I support 'designer babies' ESCR has elements of that to it.

I don't like, further, that ESCR kills said baby (we may, in fact, differ on our definition of 'baby' please don't argue this point, it is my subjective definition, you can have yours all you like but realize that I am not merely factually wrong, I am just holding a different opinion on the use of a word).

So, here is ESCR (to me) in a nutshell: One person is alive, and they have a disease, so some scientists want to create a thousand babies, and proceed to slay them, or run medical tests on them to hopefully find a cure for a disease that we might just as easily find a cure for using other methods.

I am not opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research, I just cannot advocate the slaying of babies to further humanities domination of nature.

Which is not (as I have experience) the core issue. You're suggesting that if there was a guaranteed pain-free way to kill someone that it should be elementary to conclude that all humans should be ok with mass execution (so long as you use this pain-free method).

I don't support stem-cell research for the same reasons I dont' support abortion and more. I'm not a fan of pre-birth genetic engineering, nor do I support 'designer babies' ESCR has elements of that to it.

I don't like, further, that ESCR kills said baby (we may, in fact, differ on our definition of 'baby' please don't argue this point, it is my subjective definition, you can have yours all you like but realize that I am not merely factually wrong, I am just holding a different opinion on the use of a word).

So, here is ESCR (to me) in a nutshell: One person is alive, and they have a disease, so some scientists want to create a thousand babies, and proceed to slay them, or run medical tests on them to hopefully find a cure for a disease that we might just as easily find a cure for using other methods.

I am not opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research, I just cannot advocate the slaying of babies to further humanities domination of nature.

Sorry, that's a no-go. You can't excuse using an inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory word like "baby" to describe a zygote/embryo by saying "please don't tell me I'm wrong about it". You are. Plain and simple.

snip (the really long one).

I got to point three, and stopped reading, so I apologize if I miss any focal points.

There are gaps in scientific knowledge, if a couple is unable to concieve (by God's Will), I feel confident that no scientific meddling can give them a child (adoption is counted as not being scientific meddling in this case... or any case I can currently imagine).

I oppose ESCR not because I can discard God's Will at choice, but because I feel it is a violation of the sanctity of life in a way that is easily preventable on the whole.

I feel the same way about 'designer babies' or 'abortion'. Science can help us, and I'm all for science, so long as we cacn advance without degenerating our society into one that creates babies with the intent to slay them for the sake of science. If science (without killing anyone-embryos included) can cure this disease or that... hey great, if we have to slaughter our own children (in effect, as my opinion holds) to do so, I am not as for it... in fact I would have to say I oppose it.

Thats how I feel about this particular subject and how it relates to God's Will as a whole.

Sorry, that's a no-go. You can't excuse using an inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory word like "baby" to describe a zygote/embryo by saying "please don't tell me I'm wrong about it". You are. Plain and simple.

See, thats exactly what I meant. I differ in my view of what constitutes a person, and you do not have the intellectual faculties to understand a difference of opinion. I pity you.

EDIT: I did not use the term 'baby' intentionally as an inflammatory statement, merely as a way of accurately describing how I feel, I don't care if you have no pity, or concern for what I call a baby... because it is a personal feeling.

Which is not (as I have experience) the core issue. You're suggesting that if there was a guaranteed pain-free way to kill someone that it should be elementary to conclude that all humans should be ok with mass execution (so long as you use this pain-free method).

I don't support stem-cell research for the same reasons I dont' support abortion and more. I'm not a fan of pre-birth genetic engineering, nor do I support 'designer babies' ESCR has elements of that to it.

I don't like, further, that ESCR kills said baby (we may, in fact, differ on our definition of 'baby' please don't argue this point, it is my subjective definition, you can have yours all you like but realize that I am not merely factually wrong, I am just holding a different opinion on the use of a word).

So, here is ESCR (to me) in a nutshell: One person is alive, and they have a disease, so some scientists want to create a thousand babies, and proceed to slay them, or run medical tests on them to hopefully find a cure for a disease that we might just as easily find a cure for using other methods.

I am not opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research, I just cannot advocate the slaying of babies to further humanities domination of nature.



Stupidest arguement ever. A zygote is not a baby. It will be eventually, but it isnt yet. Just because you say so doesnt mean it is, something Christians dont seem to get.

Stupidest arguement ever. A zygote is not a baby. It will be eventually, but it isnt yet. Just because you say so doesnt mean it is, something Christians dont seem to get.

I disagree with you... I feel that a zygote is as much a human as I am. It is a difference of opinion... something that a lot of people today apparently have forgotten about.

EDIT: Also, you should cite your quote, John Milton deserves the credit... this way theres no chance of someone thinking that it was any creativity of yours.

I oppose stem cell research because it can help sick people. It messes with natural selection.

I oppose stem cell research because it can help sick people. It messes with natural selection.

So you would say you are a proponent of the Darwin Awards? :D

So you would say you are a proponent of the Darwin Awards? :D

Yes, completely! Although to be honest, part of my motives for the death of the infirmed or stupid is because it means more stuff for me.

Stem cell research is a great idea, it just has too much oposition, for example:

1. Churches and Religion
2. People who fear that this is genocide or manslaughter....

But this is were the line is crossed....

For starters, the government is funding (or supposed to be funding) this project, and so Religion having a hissey fit over it really can't change anything, due to our Constitution saying "an immediate and continued seperation of the church and the state". So that means that no matter what religious fanatics are saying, the government has every right to continue with the project, no matter if it "defies God and his intentions".

Second, although this technically is considered manslaughter because of the human part of the embryo, we have to think about the future...This type of research can save lives by cloning vital organs, which can overturn the previous argument by saying that it can save human lives in the future. But still, we don't think ahead, and are only caught in the present.

(hey, we could for that matter, take up all of the teens that are pregnate and use their embryos, its a win win :D)

And that is my view on this matter....

I disagree with you... I feel that a zygote is as much a human as I am. It is a difference of opinion... something that a lot of people today apparently have forgotten about.



No, a zygote is not human. It is not self aware, it has no nervous system, it is 1/10th the size of a fruit fly's brain. It is in no way as human as you are, unless you also match the above criteria, in which case, you also arent human.


Its not a matter of opinion. Your opinion could be that an orange is pink, that doesnt make your opinion equally valid to someone who says that an orange is orange, because they are correct.

ps- Thought I cited Milton...ok well Ill go do that now.

Yes, completely! Although to be honest, part of my motives for the death of the infirmed or stupid is because it means more stuff for me.

I see... well, maybe not the ultimate moral high ground, but you'd have made Ol' Charles proud! :D

Its not a matter of opinion.

My issue is that to me, it qualifies as a human from an ethical/philosophical/moral standpoint. I am not saying that it is biologically identical (or close enough to fit with normal diversity) to me, but rather that it contains whatever it is that makes humans humand, instead of furless apes.

I feel that a zygote is as much a human as I am.

Well, at least you admit it and I can but concur.

Well, at least you admit it and I can but concur.

Well then at least you have a similar moral standpoint as me, and I warmly accept your positive view of Zygotes as being ethical fully human.

Well, at least you admit it and I can but concur.

This is unnecessarily mean-spirited. Comments like that make me embarrassed to share your views.

That being said, it was pretty clever. But still, not necessary.

This is unnecessarily mean-spirited. Comments like that make me embarrassed to share your views.

That being said, it was pretty clever. But still, not necessary.

Thank you, I'm proud to disagree with the likes of you... also you like the Darwin awards too :D

Anyone up for florescent light tube filled with gasoline lightsaber duel?

Well then at least you have a similar moral standpoint as me,

Perish the thought - you have no morals, as little as the zygote and for the same reason, so you see why I concur with your identification.

and I warmly accept your positive view of Zygotes as being ethical fully human.

Blissful, you are.

This is unnecessarily mean-spirited. Comments like that make me embarrassed to share your views.

This is me caring. Look at me go. Whee.

That being said, it was pretty clever. But still, not necessary.

I beg to differ - it wasn't all that clever, but candid, and quite necessary indeed.

Well, at least you admit it and I can but concur.

Classic. :D

Perish the thought - you have no morals, as little as the zygote and for the same reason, so you see why I concur with your identification.

Duh.

There is no pain if there is no nervous system. It’s that simple.

It definitally does not feel pain. It not only is not self aware, it also does not have a nervous system.
Quite.

My ‘conclusive’ statement was far too weak.

It is a difference of opinion... something that a lot of people today apparently have forgotten about.
Then what features/traits, in your opinion, makes you and a zygote equally human?

Indeed, what makes a human human?

and quite necessary indeed.

Necessary? How? Insulting people is necessary to you?

Do you actually think? I'm not convinced as yet that you do.

Then what features/traits, in your opinion, makes you and a zygote equally human?

Indeed, what makes a human human?

Being biologically human, which a Zygote is. This biological humanity confers upon it the moral status of personhood.

This is me caring. Look at me go. Whee.

I beg to differ - it wasn't all that clever, but candid, and quite necessary indeed.

You idiot. Do you think you can actually convince someone of your views with that pathetic, childish banter you constantly pass as wit?

See how ineffective it is? I doubt very much calling you an idiot made you agree with my point. Just as calling Der T-something subhuman is unlikely to convince him of yours.

(As a side, I do not actually believe Fass to be an idiot. It was used as an example.)

(As another side, I already know Fass doesn't care what I think about him. Don't bother telling me.)

Being biologically human, which a Zygote is. This biological humanity confers upon it the moral status of personhood.
If you grant personhood to any cell that is ‘biologically human’, then you’d have to grant personhood to each individual hair on your head, or each individual skin cell, etc.

You idiot.

You're really hurting my fragile, little feelings.

Do you think you can actually convince someone of your views with that pathetic, childish banter you constantly pass as wit?

You seem to be under the impression I'm out to convince. How odd and eerily noobish.

Just as calling Der T-something subhuman

I didn't do that. She did herself.

(As a side, I do not actually believe Fass to be an idiot. It was used as an example.)

Aww, my bruised feelings are all assuaged.

(As another side, I already know Fass doesn't care what I think about him. Don't bother telling me.)

But how will you remember it for next time, since you seem to have forgotten it this one?

Necessary? How? Insulting people is necessary to you?

So, suddenly you're people? But you just said you weren't - you identified yourself with something brainless. Is our agreement to last so shortly?

Do you actually think? I'm not convinced as yet that you do.

Ah, that is the question you should've asked yourself, isn't it? Then perhaps you would've been able to see the difference between yourself and a zygote. A difference of which you are also yet unconvinced, so it's a pattern for you, seemingly.

Being biologically human, which a Zygote is. This biological humanity confers upon it the moral status of personhood.
It is obvious, by this above statement, that you do not know genetics. A Zygote is a clump of human cells. It is not biologically human. Not any more than your hair or nails, after being cut, are biologically human. Or your blood, after it is spilt. Or your saliva, or your semen/eggs. They are human tissue/fluids, certainly, but to say every one of those things are biologically human is telling as to your level of knowledge in the field.

A zygote could potentially become a human being. But if we count eveything that could potentially be a human as a full human, then by that account, every teenage boy in the world is responsible for a genocide every time they have a wet dream or play with themselves, and every woman is murdering a potential human every time she has her period. So let's not go there, shall we?

Like I said, there is only one real reason of opposition to stem cell research: and that reason is ignorance in the field of genetics/human reproductive system.

Like I said, there is only one real reason of opposition to stem cell research: and that reason is ignorance in the field of genetics/human reproductive system.
That, and a hangover from pre-Enlightenment Christian theology.

Or, as studies with skin cells are starting to suggest, every time someone loses a finger.

Indeed. I think the potentiality issue is a foolish way of trying to convince people that stem cell research is somehow ethically wrong.

For that matter? Anyone who tries to use theological or religious arguments on a scientific matter phails. Utterly.

A zygote could potentially become a human being. But if we count eveything that could potentially be a human as a full human, then by that account, every teenage boy in the world is responsible for a genocide every time they have a wet dream or play with themselves, and every woman is murdering a potential human every time she has her period. So let's not go there, shall we?

Or, as studies with skin cells are starting to suggest, every time someone loses a finger.

Which is not (as I have experience) the core issue. You're suggesting that if there was a guaranteed pain-free way to kill someone that it should be elementary to conclude that all humans should be ok with mass execution (so long as you use this pain-free method).

I don't support stem-cell research for the same reasons I dont' support abortion and more. I'm not a fan of pre-birth genetic engineering, nor do I support 'designer babies' ESCR has elements of that to it.

I don't like, further, that ESCR kills said baby (we may, in fact, differ on our definition of 'baby' please don't argue this point, it is my subjective definition, you can have yours all you like but realize that I am not merely factually wrong, I am just holding a different opinion on the use of a word).

So, here is ESCR (to me) in a nutshell: One person is alive, and they have a disease, so some scientists want to create a thousand babies, and proceed to slay them, or run medical tests on them to hopefully find a cure for a disease that we might just as easily find a cure for using other methods.

I am not opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research, I just cannot advocate the slaying of babies to further humanities domination of nature.
It's not just about pain but about consciousness. The problem with murder is that it forces death upon someone, but if one does not have a consciousness to lose, death can't be forced upon them.

And what's with your use of emotionally charged language like "baby" to describe a 3-day-old embryo without consciousness or sentience (and not really resembling a baby for that matter) and you also use appeals to nature. To further humanities domination of nature? Nature is not just. Nature is about survival of the fittest, from the hyenas that eat their prey alive to the sharks that eat their own young. Humanity's domination of nature is quite called for.

So, suddenly you're people? But you just said you weren't - you identified yourself with something brainless. Is our agreement to last so shortly?



Ah, that is the question you should've asked yourself, isn't it? Then perhaps you would've been able to see the difference between yourself and a zygote. A difference of which you are also yet unconvinced, so it's a pattern for you, seemingly.


Yay, you win a second "I'm Rubber You're Glue" Award for Outstanding Toddlerism! Now lets see if you can come with something of your own, or do you just repeat everything back?

I oppose stem cell research because it can help sick people. It messes with natural selection.
And what about sick people who do not plan on reproducing?

It's not just about pain but about consciousness. The problem with murder is that it forces death upon someone, but if one does not have a consciousness to lose, death can't be forced upon them.

And what's with your use of emotionally charged language like "baby" to describe a 3-day-old embryo without consciousness or sentience (and not really resembling a baby for that matter) and you also use appeals to nature. To further humanities domination of nature? Nature is not just. Nature is about survival of the fittest, from the hyenas that eat their prey alive to the sharks that eat their own young. Humanity's domination of nature is quite called for.

There's nothing in this post I don't like. I especially agree with the last three sentences.

Yay, you win a second "I'm Rubber You're Glue" Award for Outstanding Toddlerism! Now lets see if you can come with something of your own, or do you just repeat everything back?

Ah, so you have no answer of how suddenly you're to be people when you just claimed you weren't. Or is it that you're not at all "as human" as the zygote, but you just don't want to admit it because you hate having your non-arguments exposed for what they are? You want the respect accorded to sentient and thinking things and are oh, so "insulted" when not granted it, but yet want to claim equivalence between yourself and the non-sentient and non-thinking. I've already told you I can give you the latter if you want it - the former is contingent on you realising that you can't have it both ways; a realisation we've seen you be unwilling to make because of said loathing of yours to have your non-arguments be exposed. So, you dug a hole for yourself and want to keep on digging, and I'm glad to have donated you a shovel.

I disagree with you... I feel that a zygote is as much a human as I am. It is a difference of opinion... something that a lot of people today apparently have forgotten about.

EDIT: Also, you should cite your quote, John Milton deserves the credit... this way theres no chance of someone thinking that it was any creativity of yours.
It's not like it's completely isolated to being merely an issue of differing opinions when opposition to ESCR is causing me (among many others, for that matter) to have to have their health damaged by a disease for longer...

I don't think you'll find any genuine anti-stem cellers here on NSG. I could be wrong...
Do you know where I COULD find some?

Actually, come to think of it, I retract my previous statement: there is not only ONE reason to oppose stem cell research. Ignorance is the main one, yes, but there is also another: selfishness and insensibility to the plights of all the people who have diseases currently incurable by conventional means, but that stands a chance of being cured with this research.

There's really no reason to be against it, beyond willful ignorance and/or conveying your opinion by masquerading it as that of your invisible friend. Either way, preserving "morals" isn't an acceptable answer when it means you can save quite literally millions of people. It should be acceptable in any non-megalomanical deity's eyes.

I am against Embryonic stem cell research.

Embryos are far too young to be in the workforce and no doubt will be exploited more and more as they become easy targets for employers looking for cheap labor.

I am against Embryonic stem cell research.

Embryos are far too young to be in the workforce and no doubt will be exploited more and more as they become easy targets for employers looking for cheap labor.

If we don't mind 10-years old chinese/indian/ethiopian children working in factories to make our sneakers, shirts, and other cheap mass consumption products, then why should we care about embryos working in the much more privileged health sector? :rolleyes:

If we don't mind 10-years old chinese/indian/ethiopian children working in factories to make our sneakers, shirts, and other cheap mass consumption products, then why should we care about embryos working in the much more privileged health sector? :rolleyes:

'Cause their like....pre-children. So it's doublebad.

Plus, imagine the transportation fees they would have to pay. In and out of the womb each day.. I shudder to think.

Der Teutoniker, perhaps you could stop wasting your time feeding the troll and attempt to defend your position?

Well, we do have anti-stem cellers here, but it's hard to tell how serious they are. It doesn't seem too outlandish to have some floating around though.

Der Teutoniker, perhaps you could stop wasting your time feeding the troll and attempt to defend your position?

Well, we do have anti-stem cellers here, but it's hard to tell how serious they are. It doesn't seem too outlandish to have some floating around though.

Well, basically, anyone frequenting forums such as these ought to be computer literate enough to google up some genetics references, or sites about the human reproduction system and stages through which an embryo passes before it can hope of being called a baby proper.

So anyone who's computer literate enough to do that and hasn't yet, ought to go do that before they post their opinion on stem cells. And once they've done that homework, well, then they're not opposed to it anymore.

So yeah, those who try to defend preventing SCR are basically old, religious men who have no fucking clue what they're talking about, are trying to bring religious considerations in a scientific matter(which is so stupid it almost makes me want to point at them and deride them), and have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for those people who could see their lives or quality of life saved by this research. And they, of course, do not have themselves any disease or condition that could actually be cured by it.

Der Teutoniker, how do you justify enforcing your religious views by law?

That's a good one.
Justify?
Ho ho ho ha ha ho ha.

Who needs justification when you have Church and State working for you?

See, thats exactly what I meant. I differ in my view of what constitutes a person, and you do not have the intellectual faculties to understand a difference of opinion. I pity you.

EDIT: I did not use the term 'baby' intentionally as an inflammatory statement, merely as a way of accurately describing how I feel, I don't care if you have no pity, or concern for what I call a baby... because it is a personal feeling.

Keep your pity, and your Leerkopfheit, while you're at it. You seem to think that a "difference of opinion" means I have to accept your difference as fact. I don't. Nobody does. You were the one who used "baby" in your argument. How you feel about the subject doesn't hold any water in a debate. Sorry, but that's not me, that's the Greeks. If you've got a problem with the rules of rhetoric, take it up with them.

I got to point three, and stopped reading, so I apologize if I miss any focal points.

Thanks, but next time, save me the trouble and just type "TLDR" ("too long, didn't read", in case you're unfamiliar with that abbreviation -- that's not sarcasm, that's assuming Germans have different 'Net slang) so that I'll know that you're full of nonsense when you claim intelligence and yet can be bothered to read the whole post to which you're responding...or even half of it.

There are gaps in scientific knowledge, if a couple is unable to concieve (by God's Will), I feel confident that no scientific meddling can give them a child (adoption is counted as not being scientific meddling in this case... or any case I can currently imagine).

Uh...entschuldigung, but if a couple is unable to conceive, they can subvert God's Will quite nicely through science. Had you read my whole post, you'd have seen that. They have this thing called artificial insemination, and a whole host of other fertility treatments wrought by scientists. No gaps there.

I oppose ESCR not because I can discard God's Will at choice, but because I feel it is a violation of the sanctity of life in a way that is easily preventable on the whole.

Fair enough. It doesn't change the facts, but I respect that you feel that way.

I feel the same way about 'designer babies' or 'abortion'. Science can help us, and I'm all for science, so long as we cacn advance without degenerating our society into one that creates babies with the intent to slay them for the sake of science. If science (without killing anyone-embryos included) can cure this disease or that... hey great, if we have to slaughter our own children (in effect, as my opinion holds) to do so, I am not as for it... in fact I would have to say I oppose it.

Thats how I feel about this particular subject and how it relates to God's Will as a whole.

Putting those things 'in quotes' doesn't marginalize them...just thought I'd point that out. There you go again with "creating babies" -- see, if you're going to use that word so incorrectly, you're going to be called on it. You need to adjust your argument or adjust your language. Regardless of how you feel, your usage of incorrect terminology voids your argument. I understand that you feel that zygotes are babies. The simple fact is that they are not. If you truly believe that, then every sexually active woman who's ever had a conception without a zygote implanting on the uterus' wall -- and this happens rather a lot -- is a murderer or serial killer.

And if you believe that, well, you can't be reasoned with and should simply state your feelings and leave, 'cause debate is not for you.

Maybe you picked up on that anyway, but it's hard to tell over the Internet when people are being sarcastic unless there's the :rolleyes: or "*Sarcastically*" above the post.

Or, you know, if it says "Bann-ed" somewhere to the left of the post. :rolleyes:

Der Teutoniker, how do you justify enforcing your religious views by law?

If we don't mind 10-years old chinese/indian/ethiopian children working in factories to make our sneakers, shirts, and other cheap mass consumption products

They're turning kids into slaves
They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers
But what's the real cost, 'cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper
Why are we still paying so much for sneakers when you got little kid slaves making them?
What are your overheads?

couldn't resist.:D

I am against Embryonic stem cell research.

Embryos are far too young to be in the workforce and no doubt will be exploited more and more as they become easy targets for employers looking for cheap labor.

Laughing.

My.

Ass.

Off.

:D

And what about sick people who do not plan on reproducing?

Better safe than sorry.

Before I get labeled as a Social Darwinist or Spencerian, I would like to confirm that I was joking when I said those people shouldn't be helped. Maybe you picked up on that anyway, but it's hard to tell over the Internet when people are being sarcastic unless there's the :rolleyes: or "*Sarcastically*" above the post.

See, thats exactly what I meant. I differ in my view of what constitutes a person, and you do not have the intellectual faculties to understand a difference of opinion. I pity you.

It's not a difference of opinion. It's a matter of the sodding English language. A baby, by definition, has been born. A zygote has not been born, and ergo can not be a baby. Calling it a baby is, by definition, in error. Persisting in doing so after the error being pointed out is lying, and quite likely an attempt at an appeal to emotion.

Being biologically human, which a Zygote is. This biological humanity confers upon it the moral status of personhood.

Nonsense. Your fingernail is not a person. A piece of your hair is not a person. Semen and ova? Not people. A drop of your blood? Not a person. Cancerous tumor? Nope, not a person.

Sorry, "biologically human" just doesn't cut it.

You disagree with me. You're dumb!For the billionth time, people, this just doesn't work. Kindly cut it out, in any and all variants, no matter how carefully worded. Address the argument, not the arguer.

But the important point, from a vegetarian/nonspeciesist point of view, is whether or not the embryos suffer or not.

I don't think it's conclusive that embryos suffer pain, or indeed have an advanced conciousness.

If they do not have a nerve receptive center than that is another story.

If they do not have a nerve receptive center than that is another story.

Embryo's never have a central nerve center. And I believe most embryo's used for this research are in the blastocyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst) stage. They don't have anything really, it's just a few cells.

Embryo's never have a central nerve center. And I believe most embryo's used for this research are in the blastocyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst) stage. They don't have anything really, it's just a few cells.

Than I can't says that I object to it much. If we outlaw this, than we have to re-consider our morality entirely. We should have to outlaw the terrible genocide we commit when we use anti-bacterial soap.

I am against experimentation upon animals, or even insects. I am also a vegetarian. These embryos have about that much consciousness.

About the consciousness of the plants you eat? Yup.

Than I can't says that I object to it much. If we outlaw this, than we have to re-consider our morality entirely. We should have to outlaw the terrible genocide we commit when we use anti-bacterial soap.

I think we should seriously reconsider our morality, but I'm not against ESCR.

It is obvious, by this above statement, that you do not know genetics. A Zygote is a clump of human cells.

Just a quick correction: A zygote is a single human cell.

Ok, go about your regularly scheduled argument. =)


Embryo's never have a central nerve center. And I believe most embryo's used for this research are in the blastocyst stage. They don't have anything really, it's just a few cells.

All embryos used in ESC research are used at the blastocyst stage, as that is the stage at which these cells can be isolated.

Ok, go about your regularly scheduled argument. =)


Na-uh!

I got to point three, and stopped reading, so I apologize if I miss any focal points.

There are gaps in scientific knowledge, if a couple is unable to concieve (by God's Will), I feel confident that no scientific meddling can give them a child (adoption is counted as not being scientific meddling in this case... or any case I can currently imagine).

I oppose ESCR not because I can discard God's Will at choice, but because I feel it is a violation of the sanctity of life in a way that is easily preventable on the whole.

I feel the same way about 'designer babies' or 'abortion'. Science can help us, and I'm all for science, so long as we cacn advance without degenerating our society into one that creates babies with the intent to slay them for the sake of science. If science (without killing anyone-embryos included) can cure this disease or that... hey great, if we have to slaughter our own children (in effect, as my opinion holds) to do so, I am not as for it... in fact I would have to say I oppose it.

Thats how I feel about this particular subject and how it relates to God's Will as a whole.

So, you're saying that you oppose both IVF (in-vitro fertilization) and ESCR.... While I disagree, I so respect your consistency in such a case...

The problem with this entire thread is that the original poster immediately discounts any position that is indifferent to the practice but opposed to the funding. It's a perfectly legitimate argument. I don't want the federal government (in my case of the United States) making any determinations about the disbursal, allocation or distribution practices of any research funding. Lower taxes by a corresponding amount and let private financiers fund such research as a more complete version of society (people directly, as opposed to their less representative agents in congress) with more information and more responsibility.

Concerning the issue specifically, however, I have real, and in my case non-religious concerns about how technical and biologically objective we can be about when a human life has value. I see the argument of birth as the point of origin as being legitimate and supportable, but subjective. The development of a functioning nervous system, perhaps, but still subjective. Various embryonic development stages. It's all arbitrary, all subjective. So while I agree that something as early as what is required for ESC retrieval and development is substantially further over on this continuum, so to speak, than actions taken in many other stages of fetal development, it's still an early stage of human life, and I have an internal moral sense that there is SOME value there. How much, I don't know.

That said, the balance in my mind tends toward at least keeping such research legal.

But I still don't understand why the rest of the pro-research community and much of the scientific community at large seems to intent upon antagonizing those with religious values in the same way that various religious communities have so often been intolerant of science, especially when it concerns something that is clearly subjective in its analysis of the moral questions raised. Disagreement is fine, and may even be the right stance for science, but the anti-religion rhetoric has just gotten out of control. Put more succinctly, so many people seem intent upon proving that the use of ESC is not murder. Well, fine. But that doesn't mean it isn't something else. Natural law isn't binary. It isn't a matter of technicalities.

There's no room for those who want to rhetorically claim that those with inherent or religiously induced qualms about ESC somehow don't care about those with ailments or diseases that might be addressed by allowing ESC research to continue. It's an absurd claim with no basis and it's sophistry at its most offensive. There are at least a dozen avenues of research that are non-destructive to ESCs, and there is promise, if not certainty, that many of them may have similar successes. And there is the possibility that they will not be able to behave as dynamically as ESCs, in which case the onus will shift to those with moral opposition to make compelling arguments for why ESC research should not continue apace.

For the time being, however, there seems to me to be at least enough uncertainty about the sole efficacy of embryonic cells that pursuing this line of research with legitimate (but subjective) moral issues outstanding should at least be a reasonable topic of debate that doesn't invite anti-religious, anti-moralist invectives.

The problem with this entire thread is that the original poster immediately discounts any position that is indifferent to the practice but opposed to the funding.

No, it doesn't. A large portion of the post is dedicated to one such argument.


If you're against it because you don't think the government should use tax dollars for things the people would disagree with, I find that arbitrary. You'd have to be defending their reasons for disagreeing with it to be using that reason, because there's other things some people disagree with that get public funding. For example, some people disagree with public health care, but it's not like they can pay less in taxes. And really, since ESCR is for medical purposes, it should be part of the public health care funding. UNLESS there is some other reason on which the tax reason is building (and as such, if you're against ESCR entirely on the basis of believing that the governmental use of tax dollars is what's "immoral" about it) then it'd be inconsistent of you not to be against public health care. So the tax reason doesn't work, unless its use is in building on another reason.

This is one way in which someone might be indifferent to the research, but still oppose its funding.

It's a perfectly legitimate argument. I don't want the federal government (in my case of the United States) making any determinations about the disbursal, allocation or distribution practices of any research funding. Lower taxes by a corresponding amount and let private financiers fund such research as a more complete version of society (people directly, as opposed to their less representative agents in congress) with more information and more responsibility.

Here's the problem with that idea: You simply don't get enough money from private financiers for basic science research. Why? Because it isn't profitable. Basic science research often isn't going to lead to anything that will be profitable until decades later. Increasing our understanding is not directly profitable. Private funding generally gets involved when research gets to the point that its on the verge of something profitable.

For the time being, however, there seems to me to be at least enough uncertainty about the sole efficacy of embryonic cells that pursuing this line of research with legitimate (but subjective) moral issues outstanding should at least be a reasonable topic of debate that doesn't invite anti-religious, anti-moralist invectives.

No, there really isn't. Embryonic stem cells are the only totipotent cells thus isolated that numerous labs have been able to work with. They are also a completely unmatched window into human development - research that goes well beyond cell-based cures. There is research we can do with ESCs for which there is no other comparable source.

That isn't to say that there are not moral or ethical arguments to be had. However, as long as those opposing the research are not opposed to in vitro fertilization, they can pretty much be discounted out of hand. The idea that embryos should be discarded rather than used in research just because they say so is ridiculous.

All embryos used in ESC research are used at the blastocyst stage, as that is the stage at which these cells can be isolated.

I know, but I wasn't wrong when I said that no embryo's have a central nervous system? If I remember correctly an embryo becomes a fetus at about 4 weeks, which would be about the time the neural plates close, and I don't really think that can be called a central nervous system.

No, there really isn't. Embryonic stem cells are the only totipotent cells thus isolated that numerous labs have been able to work with. They are also a completely unmatched window into human development - research that goes well beyond cell-based cures. There is research we can do with ESCs for which there is no other comparable source.

That isn't to say that there are not moral or ethical arguments to be had. However, as long as those opposing the research are not opposed to in vitro fertilization, they can pretty much be discounted out of hand. The idea that embryos should be discarded rather than used in research just because they say so is ridiculous.
Personally, I'm sick of people who have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever presuming to make moral judgments about methods and procedures that they haven't even bothered to educate themselves about.

If people care so much about embryonic stem cell research, then they should put their "care" where their mouth is. Learn about the actual science for yourselves, people. Stop relying on mainstream media and church fliers for your information about stem cells.

Want to debate the "moral issues" on this topic? Fine. Prove that you have a solid grasp of what an embryonic stem cell is, and what research can learn from it. Prove that you understand how research is financed and what the ethical/legal requirements for research are.

I'm really tired of how this topic always ends up being one or two scientists patiently explaining what a stem cell is and why researchers give a crap. Most of the people who claim to have such very strong moral feelings about stem cell research turn out to have no clue what they're talking about.

If folks actually do care, if they actually think this topic is important, then they should behave like it. Take it seriously. Stop stalling out the discussion and debate by making scientists hold your hand and spoon-feed you fundamental information. LEARN THE TOPIC FIRST, THEN DEBATE IT.

I know, but I wasn't wrong when I said that no embryo's have a central nervous system? If I remember correctly an embryo becomes a fetus at about 4 weeks, which would be about the time the neural plates close, and I don't really think that can be called a central nervous system.
I think Demi was agreeing with you (I might be wrong though).

The central nervous system has not differentiated yet, if you're talking about the blastocyst stage.

It is possible to identify neural precursor cells amazingly early (science is so freaking cool!!) but it would not be remotely accurate to say that a blastocyst has a "nervous system" just because it has precursor cells that may eventually differentiate into the cells of the CNS.

I think Demi was agreeing with you (I might be wrong though).

The central nervous system has not differentiated yet, if you're talking about the blastocyst stage.

It is possible to identify neural precursor cells amazingly early (science is so freaking cool!!) but it would not be remotely accurate to say that a blastocyst has a "nervous system" just because it has precursor cells that may eventually differentiate into the cells of the CNS.

Well, I have a basic grasp of embryology but was just a little bit to lazy to search if I was right and opted to ask it.
And how and when can you identify neural precursor cells and what is amazingly early?

(science is so freaking cool!!)

This is really the only rational reaction to the study of embryology, I think. It's really tremendously fascinating stuff. :)

I know, but I wasn't wrong when I said that no embryo's have a central nervous system? If I remember correctly an embryo becomes a fetus at about 4 weeks, which would be about the time the neural plates close, and I don't really think that can be called a central nervous system.

You're absolutely right on that. Blastocysts not only have no central nervous system - they have no neurons! At the blastocyst stage, there are two types of cells - embryonic stem cells and trophoblasts. The embryonic stem cells are the cells that could develop into a human being. The trophoblasts can become part of a placenta.

If people care so much about embryonic stem cell research, then they should put their "care" where their mouth is. Learn about the actual science for yourselves, people. Stop relying on mainstream media and church fliers for your information about stem cells.

I agree here. I've actually found that many people who say they oppose ESC research quickly change their minds when you sit them down and actually explain what is involved in such research. It would certainly be better if those forming such strong opinions on the issues bothered to educate themselves first.

And that goes for people on both sides of the debate. Every time there is a thread on ESCs, at least one person says, "Of course they should use the stem cells from abortions..." Of course, those of us who know what an ESC is and how it is derived are aware that abortions have nothing to do with it.

Here's the problem with that idea: You simply don't get enough money from private financiers for basic science research. Why? Because it isn't profitable. Basic science research often isn't going to lead to anything that will be profitable until decades later. Increasing our understanding is not directly profitable. Private funding generally gets involved when research gets to the point that its on the verge of something profitable.

We're talking philanthropy and charity. The key word in your argument was, "enough." The problem is that government is a subset of society. The marketplace, which encompasses both philanthropy and charity, IS society. If society believes there are more worthy pursuits for their capital, then the government deciding that the level of "enoughness" for research funding is higher than society's own determination is a violation of their duty to represent the will of the governed. Super in authoritarian states, but less than desirable in a democracy.


No, there really isn't. Embryonic stem cells are the only totipotent cells thus isolated that numerous labs have been able to work with. They are also a completely unmatched window into human development - research that goes well beyond cell-based cures. There is research we can do with ESCs for which there is no other comparable source.

I think you missed my point. There's no question that no currently available source is as effective as ESCs. They may be the only ones that they have been able to work with, but may not be the only ones that they WILL be able to work with, and there has been substantial research in the last 1-2 years that demonstrates that other cell lines may in the future prove ESC development to have been hasty.

And again...I personally support ESC research, but to discount those who have moral questions in light of the potential that future research may never have really depended on it, as many have done, seems shortsighted. It's a real quandary. If three years from now we could generate equivalent results from some other non-destructive method, would that delay make pressing through the moral subjectivity somewhat troubling? Maybe. What if we can ultimately generate positive research from the pluripotent cells that we know can be generated from adult cultures? On the other side, there's the uncertainty of whether such a superior cell stage to ESC will ever be discovered. This may be the legitimate best source of research for the improvement of human life. But I don't like how much this issue smacks of the same type of groupthink as climate change - anyone who finds cause to differ somewhat from their conclusions is "Bible thumping trailer trash."


That isn't to say that there are not moral or ethical arguments to be had. However, as long as those opposing the research are not opposed to in vitro fertilization, they can pretty much be discounted out of hand. The idea that embryos should be discarded rather than used in research just because they say so is ridiculous.

I don't disagree personally, although I could envision some difference of opinion from someone whose concern is not necessarily with embryo destruction but rather a broader fear that human life will become increasingly engineered. The slippery slope discussion isn't compelling at all to me as I don't view the questions as being remotely related, but it's held by a significant enough portion of the population that we can at least conclude that it's a legitimate moral concern. I wouldn't want to "discount out of hand" anything of that nature. But that's just me.

About the consciousness of the plants you eat? Yup.

*looks at yogurt*

Personally, I'm sick of people who have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever presuming to make moral judgments about methods and procedures that they haven't even bothered to educate themselves about.

If people care so much about embryonic stem cell research, then they should put their "care" where their mouth is. Learn about the actual science for yourselves, people. Stop relying on mainstream media and church fliers for your information about stem cells.

This is an infuriating bit of empty rhetoric. You're creating a straw man of your opponents - they're all people who get their information from church fliers, of course! Why not call them "rednecks" or "white trash from the south" next, while we're on an ad hominem blathering kick? Don't worry, we'll wait.


Want to debate the "moral issues" on this topic? Fine. Prove that you have a solid grasp of what an embryonic stem cell is, and what research can learn from it. Prove that you understand how research is financed and what the ethical/legal requirements for research are.

I'm really tired of how this topic always ends up being one or two scientists patiently explaining what a stem cell is and why researchers give a crap. Most of the people who claim to have such very strong moral feelings about stem cell research turn out to have no clue what they're talking about.

If folks actually do care, if they actually think this topic is important, then they should behave like it. Take it seriously. Stop stalling out the discussion and debate by making scientists hold your hand and spoon-feed you fundamental information. LEARN THE TOPIC FIRST, THEN DEBATE IT.

I don't have a problem with believing that somewhat ought to have the requisite knowledge to discuss an issue, especially if you are endeavoring to examine the relative morality of different positions. You cannot rely on irrelevant and meaningless quibbles with facts that are not related to the arguments being posited by the other party, however.

If someone argues that "embryonic stem cell research" is immoral because a mass of embryonic cells feels pain, that's one thing. Their mistake is intrinsically tied to their argument, and illegitimizes it.

On the other hand, if someone argues that there are serious questions about whether it makes sense to continue ESC research at the moment until the entire range of questions opened up by Kyoto/CREST's research effort, which indicates that adult multipotent cells may indeed be prodded into essentially pluripotent cells by combination by various modifications, have been answered, it hardly makes sense to beef with them for not being aware of the standard deviation and mean number of individual cell divisions while retaining pluripotency within a 120-cell embryo. And even less sense to follow it up with good old fashioned accusations of being ignorantly religious.

In other words, asking people to be informed is fine, but don't use it as a crutch to protect you from legitimate arguments.

We're talking philanthropy and charity.

No, we're talking about science. Do you have any idea how much money it takes to run even a single lab? If you rely on philanthropy and charity for scientific progress, it is going to grind to a halt.

The key word in your argument was, "enough." The problem is that government is a subset of society. The marketplace, which encompasses both philanthropy and charity, IS society. If society believes there are more worthy pursuits for their capital, then the government deciding that the level of "enoughness" for research funding is higher than society's own determination is a violation of their duty to represent the will of the governed. Super in authoritarian states, but less than desirable in a democracy.

In a democratic system, society controls the government. If people don't want science funded, they should let their representatives know and vote them out if they don't like how the representatives vote.

They should be prepared, however, for the economic downturn that will come when their nation falls far behind in technological advances.


I think you missed my point. There's no question that no currently available source is as effective as ESCs. They may be the only ones that they have been able to work with, but may not be the only ones that they WILL be able to work with, and there has been substantial research in the last 1-2 years that demonstrates that other cell lines may in the future prove ESC development to have been hasty.

No, there hasn't been. Believe me, I know. It's part of my job to keep up on the research.

The media likes to report certain advances as if they are rendering ESC research obsolete, but the fact of the matter is that no research has actually done so - and the researchers involved in those studies will tell you that.

And the fact still remains that ESCs provide a completely unmatched window into human development itself. As an example, one of the projects in the lab I work in is a project to determine the mechanism behind fetal alcohol syndrome. We have enough evidence to believe that maternal alcohol consumption causes the symptoms, but we don't know how. Using ESCs, we can directly look at the effects of alcohol on undifferentiated cells, cells that are in the process of developing down a certain lineage, and then differentiated cells.

I am against Embryonic stem cell research.

Embryos are far too young to be in the workforce and no doubt will be exploited more and more as they become easy targets for employers looking for cheap labor.



Zygotes of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your umbilical chords!:p

... then why?

I'm getting pretty sick of ...snip

So here I go:

If you're against embryonic stem cell research, then I'd like to see you get type 1 diabetes.


Why would anyone take your discussion topic seriously with such a foolish comment tacked on it??

I am against it for any number of reasons, none of which I would bother discussing with someone with no more intelligence than your last sentence indicates you have.

This is an infuriating bit of empty rhetoric. You're creating a straw man of your opponents - they're all people who get their information from church fliers, of course! Why not call them "rednecks" or "white trash from the south" next, while we're on an ad hominem blathering kick? Don't worry, we'll wait.

Actually, she said mainstream media as well.

The truth of the matter is, most of the misconceptions we hear about stem cell research come from a religious background. It's unfortunate that churches are spreading misinformation, but it is nonetheless true. The rest come from people getting their information off the news. Newscasters generally don't have any better understanding of the science than any other layperson, and thus present it in such little detail that it isn't enough to form an informed opinion.

Meanwhile, are you suggesting that all persons who attend church are "rednecks" or "white trash from the south"?

On the other hand, if someone argues that there are serious questions about whether it makes sense to continue ESC research at the moment until the entire range of questions opened up by Kyoto/CREST's research effort, which indicates that adult multipotent cells may indeed be prodded into essentially pluripotent cells by combination by various modifications, have been answered, it hardly makes sense to beef with them for not being aware of the standard deviation and mean number of individual cell divisions while retaining pluripotency within a 120-cell embryo. And even less sense to follow it up with good old fashioned accusations of being ignorantly religious.

(a) If you are speaking of the research I am thinking of, multipotent cells were not used.

(b) Even the researchers on those projects will tell you that ESC research should not be halted because of their research, for a number of reasons. Among those is the fact that differences in cellular behavior have already been noted - making it clear that the modified cells do not truly mimic ESCs. Another is the fact that the genetic modifications used to create these cells preclude them from being used in a clinical setting.

But, again, most people who would make that argument got their information on this research from a news article about it, and haven't bothered to delve into the surrounding research or even to read the actual papers. They don't understand the genetic modifications made or how they would affect future uses. They simply read an article stating that these cells were just like ESCs and concluded that ESC research could now be halted.

In other words, asking people to be informed is fine, but don't use it as a crutch to protect you from legitimate arguments.

It is difficult for someone to make a legitimate argument without being informed.

Zygotes of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your umbilical chords!:p

But....but.....zygotes don't have umbilical cords!

I can understand why he'd be so angry.

Indeed. Wishing disease upon those intent on blocking research may not be the best debate tactic, but it is at least understandable.

Why would anyone take your discussion topic seriously with such a foolish comment tacked on it??

I am against it for any number of reasons, none of which I would bother discussing with someone with no more intelligence than your last sentence indicates you have.

Here, read this:

I keep hearing about church opposition to such and such research, scientists trying to design this alternative to the embryos, etc... but why should scientists have to bend to the will of the churches anyway? The religious choke chain is being pulled on medical research, and many people, including myself (I have type 1 diabetes) are being victimized in the process. We've seen some embryonic stem cell research advocates like Michael J. Fox, for example, trying to be gentle with opponents, and he got met with completely false accusations of partisanship, faking, and half-truth. Being nice is clearly not working. It's time we fight back. So here I go:

If you're against embryonic stem cell research, then I'd like to see you get type 1 diabetes.

I can understand why he'd be so angry.

I agree here. I've actually found that many people who say they oppose ESC research quickly change their minds when you sit them down and actually explain what is involved in such research. It would certainly be better if those forming such strong opinions on the issues bothered to educate themselves first.

I don't understand how people manage to form strong opinions about ANYTHING without even knowing what the hell it is.

I have a lot of strong opinions. I'm even willing to admit that it's possible some of them are wrong. But I don't form a strong opinion about something until I at least know what it is.

So many people tell me that they think stem cell research is wrong because they're anti-abortion, and it makes me want to put my head through a wall.


And that goes for people on both sides of the debate. Every time there is a thread on ESCs, at least one person says, "Of course they should use the stem cells from abortions..." Of course, those of us who know what an ESC is and how it is derived are aware that abortions have nothing to do with it.I'd love it if the only people who debated ESC research were the people who know what ESCs are and how they are derived. I'd love it if those who don't know would sit back and LISTEN and LEARN first. This does not mean they have to shut up forever and stop having opinions, just that they should LEARN FIRST and DEBATE SECOND. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

Indeed. Wishing disease upon those intent on blocking research may not be the best debate tactic, but it is at least understandable.
I'm a big believer in empathy, too. From personal experience, I know that people who oppose legal abortion tend to sing a very different tune if they find themselves pregnant when they don't want to be. People who oppose welfare tend to see things a bit differently when they find themselves in need of it. And so forth.

This is why I find myself wishing certain misfortunes on some people. Not necessarily because I wish them harm, in and of itself, but because I am so frustrated trying to get their empathy circuit to kick in. "If you had a disease that stem cell research might help to treat," I think, "then maybe you wouldn't be in such a hurry to form negative opinions of it without doing your damn homework." It's not that I want people to get sick. I just want them to give a shit. I want them to empathize and to care enough to learn something.

So, you're saying that you oppose both IVF (in-vitro fertilization) and ESCR.... While I disagree, I so respect your consistency in such a case...

Read again:

There are gaps in scientific knowledge, if a couple is unable to concieve (by God's Will), I feel confident that no scientific meddling can give them a child (adoption is counted as not being scientific meddling in this case... or any case I can currently imagine).


He doesn't oppose IVF, he's never heard of it -- at least that's the context I'm reading in that post. He also lets us know that adoption is not a result of science....

Please let me know if I'm off base here, but if that's consistency, it's a foolish one.

Zygotes of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your umbilical chords!:p

Which chord is the umbilical? Major? Minor? Augmented? Diminished? Or is it a seventh chord? Major seventh, dominant seventh, minor seventh, half or fully diminished seventh? Is it a ninth or further extended chord? Does it have alterations? Is it even a chord that functions in Western tonality?

Oh.

You meant "cord".

Got it.

Sorry.

Which chord is the umbilical? Major? Minor? Augmented? Diminished? Or is it a seventh chord? Major seventh, dominant seventh, minor seventh, half or fully diminished seventh? Is it a ninth or further extended chord? Does it have alterations? Is it even a chord that functions in Western tonality?

Oh.

You meant "cord".

Got it.

Sorry.

LOL!

I actually missed that misspelling.

Here, read this:



I can understand why he'd be so angry.


No, that doesn't excuse such a infantile remark in any adult world that I know of at all. My list of ailments that might benefit include conditions are more debilitating than type 1 diabetes. (I battle(d) renal cell cancer, Graves disease, lupus and Sjogrens syndrome.) My uncle has advanced Parkinsons, and the list goes on and on. Aren't we all angry that life dealt us a crappy bowl of soup? Does that give me a reason to wish illness on others who don't agree with my view? Of course not.

I find it wrong for our government to finance research in trafficing embryos. I absolutely support private funding of the research, which the last time I checked actually was receiving more funding than ever before because people are angry that the government will not fund it. People are seeing that it is funded privately instead of whining about it all the time.

If the OP is so torn up about it perhaps he could research it and give addresses where people can privately donate. This research is on-going, I wrote my check to Johns Hopkins, I am wondering who he has donated to lately.

Isn't more solved by working toward a goal then being hateful and tasteless in those topics we are passionate about?

No, that doesn't excuse such a infantile remark in any adult world that I know of at all. My list of ailments that might benefit include conditions are more debilitating than type 1 diabetes. (I battle(d) renal cell cancer, Graves disease, lupus and Sjogrens syndrome.) My uncle has advanced Parkinsons, and the list goes on and on. Aren't we all angry that life dealt us a crappy bowl of soup? Does that give me a reason to wish illness on others who don't agree with my view?

Sure, it gives you a reason. Whether or not you want to do so is up to you.


I find it wrong for our government to finance research in trafficing embryos.

Yawn. "Trafficking in embryos" that are going to be thrown into a dumpster otherwise? Forgive me for not buying that line.


I absolutely support private funding of the research, which the last time I checked actually was receiving more funding than ever before because people are angry that the government will not fund it.

When did you check that?


People are seeing that it is funded privately instead of whining about it all the time.

ESC research is getting as much private funding as it is because of the "whining" that activists have been doing to get the word out.

You can thank them whenever you're ready.


Isn't more solved by working toward a goal then being hateful and tasteless in those topics we are passionate about?
I don't see why one cannot do both. I find it quite easy to put in a full day of work, donate money to charity regularly, spend time with my family and friends, eat a healthy and well-balanced diet, keep up on my reading, enjoy my hobbies, and still have time to insult the living snot out of people who annoy me.

Sure, it gives you a reason. Whether or not you want to do so is up to you.


Yawn. "Trafficking in embryos" that are going to be thrown into a dumpster otherwise? Forgive me for not buying that line.


When did you check that?


ESC research is getting as much private funding as it is because of the "whining" that activists have been doing to get the word out.

You can thank them whenever you're ready.


I don't see why one cannot do both. I find it quite easy to put in a full day of work, donate money to charity regularly, spend time with my family and friends, eat a healthy and well-balanced diet, keep up on my reading, enjoy my hobbies, and still have time to insult the living snot out of people who annoy me.

My last check on the figures was in June of last year. I wrote my donation check then also. I admit I have not checked it recently.

I dont' recall asking you to 'buy' a thing I had to say, I wasn't selling. I was giving my reason for not supporting Federal funding of ESC research. My comment wasn't about you.

Certainly you can do both, I don't think I questioned your ability.

Which chord is the umbilical? Major? Minor? Augmented? Diminished? Or is it a seventh chord? Major seventh, dominant seventh, minor seventh, half or fully diminished seventh? Is it a ninth or further extended chord? Does it have alterations? Is it even a chord that functions in Western tonality?


My umbilical chord was a suspended F major. I have unresolved issues.

Which chord is the umbilical? Major? Minor? Augmented? Diminished? Or is it a seventh chord? Major seventh, dominant seventh, minor seventh, half or fully diminished seventh? Is it a ninth or further extended chord? Does it have alterations? Is it even a chord that functions in Western tonality?

Oh.

You meant "cord".

Got it.

Sorry.

My umbilical chord was a suspended F major. I have unresolved issues.

These two posts are definitely in harmony. Perhaps I should add a third and hope the fourth is timewarped before me.

I'm not. I'm very much for it and would like to see much more funding go it. I'm only posting in this thread because I can only access threads in moderation. *grumbles about server* database error my arse

Read again:



He doesn't oppose IVF, he's never heard of it -- at least that's the context I'm reading in that post. He also lets us know that adoption is not a result of science....

Please let me know if I'm off base here, but if that's consistency, it's a foolish one.



I read it that he considered IVF as a form of "scientific meddling".... In which case, the person is consistent in that they oppose both IVF and the subsequent use of left-over embryos from said procedures in ESCR... That is at least a consistent holding, unlike those who oppose ESCR but are all for IVF, yet consider the use of the embryos in research as "murder" but don't consider the wanton destruction of the unused embryos as "murder"...

My umbilical chord was a suspended F major. I have unresolved issues.

These two posts are definitely in harmony. Perhaps I should add a third and hope the fourth is timewarped before me.

Too...many....puns...must...stop...*faints* *THUD*.

Good of you to both take note.


Oh, Lord, I am sooooo sorry!


I read it that he considered IVF as a form of "scientific meddling".... In which case, the person is consistent in that they oppose both IVF and the subsequent use of left-over embryos from said procedures in ESCR... That is at least a consistent holding, unlike those who oppose ESCR but are all for IVF, yet consider the use of the embryos in research as "murder" but don't consider the wanton destruction of the unused embryos as "murder"...

Well, I can't say I agree with you about DT's wording, but it doesn't matter that much to me, so if that's the way you're seeing it, fair enough.

You're absolutely right on that. Blastocysts not only have no central nervous system - they have no neurons! At the blastocyst stage, there are two types of cells - embryonic stem cells and trophoblasts. The embryonic stem cells are the cells that could develop into a human being. The trophoblasts can become part of a placenta.


on a related topic....

the other day that group announced that they had made a clone from someone's skin cell. but they said something like that it didnt have any stem cells.

how would that fit into what you have said here? can it BE a blastocyst without stem cells?

on a related topic....

the other day that group announced that they had made a clone from someone's skin cell. but they said something like that it didnt have any stem cells.

how would that fit into what you have said here? can it BE a blastocyst without stem cells?

It wasn't that the stem cells were not there, but that they did not attempt to derive a stem cell line from the embryos. Instead, they were destroyed in testing to prove that they were successful clones.

then it'd be inconsistent of you not to be against public health care

I *am* against public health care. I'm not going to argue it in this thread, because nobody ever gets persuaded and only flame wars begin, but just saying.

Too...many....puns...must...stop...*faints* *THUD*.

Good of you to both take note.


Oh, Lord, I am sooooo sorry!

:p

I don't like, further, that ESCR kills said baby (we may, in fact, differ on our definition of 'baby' please don't argue this point, it is my subjective definition, you can have yours all you like but realize that I am not merely factually wrong, I am just holding a different opinion on the use of a word).

Yes, you are in fact factually wrong. An embryo is not a baby. It may develop into a baby if given a chance, or it may be miscarried. Besides the embryos used for this research are those scheduled to be destroyed ANYWAY, usually because they were created for infertility treatments and are no longer needed. And don't give me any bullshit about "snowflake babies" if you want to adopt there are REAL children who need a home.

I got to point three, and stopped reading, so I apologize if I miss any focal points.

There are gaps in scientific knowledge, if a couple is unable to concieve (by God's Will), I feel confident that no scientific meddling can give them a child (adoption is counted as not being scientific meddling in this case... or any case I can currently imagine).

I oppose ESCR not because I can discard God's Will at choice, but because I feel it is a violation of the sanctity of life in a way that is easily preventable on the whole.

I feel the same way about 'designer babies' or 'abortion'. Science can help us, and I'm all for science, so long as we cacn advance without degenerating our society into one that creates babies with the intent to slay them for the sake of science. If science (without killing anyone-embryos included) can cure this disease or that... hey great, if we have to slaughter our own children (in effect, as my opinion holds) to do so, I am not as for it... in fact I would have to say I oppose it.

Thats how I feel about this particular subject and how it relates to God's Will as a whole.

Interesting. So you're saying you KNOW God's will. Leaving aside how that's possible, which god?

I disagree with you... I feel that a zygote is as much a human as I am. It is a difference of opinion... something that a lot of people today apparently have forgotten about.


If I think the moon is made of cheese that too is a difference of opinion. I would also be factually incorrect, as are you in regards to the baby/embryo distinction.

Well then at least you have a similar moral standpoint as me, and I warmly accept your positive view of Zygotes as being ethical fully human.

That's not what he said.

Being biologically human, which a Zygote is.

So is my hair, fingernails, blood . . .

It wasn't that the stem cells were not there, but that they did not attempt to derive a stem cell line from the embryos. Instead, they were destroyed in testing to prove that they were successful clones.

thanks.